Unjust enrichment did not bar customs duty refund where investigation-stage deposit was not passed on to customers.

Customs duty deposited after a show cause notice and during investigation was treated as a protest or revenue deposit, so the refund claim was not barred by unjust enrichment. The Chartered Accountant's certificate and invoices showed that the duty burden was not included in the sale price or recovered from customers, and mere accounting entry in the profit and loss account was insufficient to prove passing on of incidence. In the absence of contrary evidence from the department, unjust enrichment did not apply and the refund was admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim of customs duty paid during investigation was barred by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The amount was deposited after issuance of the show cause notice and during the course of investigation, and was therefore treated as a deposit made under protest or a revenue deposit. The Chartered Accountant's certificate and the invoices on record supported the claim that the duty burden had not been included in the sale price or recovered from customers. Mere booking of the amount in the profit and loss account was held to be insufficient, by itself, to establish passing on of the incidence of duty. In the absence of contrary evidence from the department, unjust enrichment was held not to apply.

Conclusion: The refund was not hit by unjust enrichment and was held admissible.

Ratio Decidendi: Duty deposited during adjudication or investigation, when supported by evidence showing that its incidence was not passed on to customers, does not attract the bar of unjust enrichment.

---